Democrats wonder why so many in Lewis County vote for Republicans. I’m voting for all three Republican state legislators — Sen. John Braun and state Reps. Peter Abbarno and Ed Orcutt — because they all understand a fundamental truth of politics in Washington state. Residents of rural areas pay far more of their personal incomes in state and local taxes than urban areas and get far less in state services in return.

The Democrats talk about unfairness in the system as though they will fight to end inequities, but vote to make it worse.

The best example is school funding. Our state constitution promises comparable education to all K-12 students. Yet, wealthier school districts pass far higher per student funds from local levies and do so with far lower tax rates than rurals. 

Rural areas have lower per student property values than urban. To get the same per student dollars from a levy, rural districts have to pass far higher local tax rates. Because rural areas’ average personal incomes are far lower than those in urban areas, those far higher tax rates have to be passed on to poorer citizens. Rural areas seldom collect the same per student funds from local levies.

Levy equalization passed in 1987 to address this. The program provided a state match so no district would need a tax rate higher than the average needed in the state for the first half of an allowable levy. This bill substantially lowered local tax rates needed to the first half of the levy.  Not full levy equalization, but pretty good. 

Levy equalization became the third largest education fund in the state and pumped billions of dollars into mostly rural schools over 30 years to catch up. It passed with substantial Democrat support, but Democrats and urban unions became disenchanted with all that money going to rural areas. In 2017, they gutted the bill and slashed the funding.

The Basic Education Act in 1977 also required equal state salary funding for teachers. Prior, teachers in rural areas were paid as much as half of what urban areas paid their teachers.  Urban areas were far more capable of attracting and retaining the best teachers and rural areas routinely lost their teachers. Starting in 1981, most districts started receiving the same state funding for teacher salaries. After 36 years, the state gutted that in 2017. Now, urban schools receive up to 18 percent more in state salary funding than most rural districts. 

The state Democrats and urban unions argued it costs more to live in urban areas and they couldn’t retain their teachers. This was blatantly false. Research shows urban areas did better attracting and retaining teachers despite cost of living. Rural teachers move more often, and rural schools have, on average, the least experienced teachers. Rural areas have always had greater difficulty attracting and retaining teachers, and teachers report moving because of better resources in urban areas to help teachers. 

Giving urban teachers more state salary funding again makes it more difficult for rural areas to attract teachers. Nothing in the constitution says the state has to provide urban teachers comparable buying power with salaries. It says the state needs to provide a comparable education. The ability to attract and retain quality teachers is a crucial part. 

I’m voting for the state party that works to provide greater equity to rural areas, and that’s Republicans. And I’ll always appreciate former state Rep. Richard DeBolt when he led a classic filibuster in the House until the Democrats restored $60 million to levy equalization, which former Gov. Christine Gregoire tried to cut. 

Neal Kirby

Centralia